> And the reason why this is important in the Ontolog Forum is that the
> vocabularies -- the "ontologies" -- are critical to being able to
> discuss that state with a partner organization who has a somewhat
> different view.
This is certainly an important area. I personally like to add the work
OMG doing to the a list of important efforts.
Im sitting just now and is incorporating OMG Semantics of Business
Vocabularies and Business Rules in a national handbook. This with links
to WS-Policy and XACML, works rather nice. (01)
> At least the current Core Components activity is directed toward solving
> one of the critical problems -- the common vocabulary. And the approach
> is interesting -- the "standard lower ontology" from which higher
> concepts are built. That said, I think much more of that effort is also
> being spent on technical details than semantics. "You can take the boy
> out of the country, but you can't take the country out of the boy."
In my opinion Its a fair assessment that the CCTS work is tilted toward
technologies consideration and not sufficiently business. The latest
proposals I have seen regarding business level datatyping is rather
mixing functional requirements with technical XML solutions. Im not sure
why a business user should be required to specify a "hexadecimal" amount.. (02)
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (04)